On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 22:16 -0700, Mark Womack wrote: > But slf4j has only been around for a month and half? Isn't it a bit early > to call it a mistake? Sounds like there needs to be some more evangelizing > of the JCL camp. Has the slf4j community grown in any way since its > inception? > > > Bring the "static linking" concept over to JCL instead, into a version 2 > > (or > > 3) and leverage the market that JCL in fact has. It should be much > > different > > than the now competing approach. > > Who is working on JCL nowadays? I was under the impression that discussions > had already been under way with the JCL folks and moving out to slf4j was > something they wanted too.
The people working on JCL logging at the moment are Robert Donkin, Brian Stansberry and myself. As far as I know, I'm the only one subscribed to the log4j/slf4j lists. Ceki appears to keep an eye on some of the JCL development as he posts occasionally. My opinion of moving UGLI to SLF4J was expressed here: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-dev&m=111491522518416&w=2 To summarize, I didn't see hosting SLF4J outside the log4j project would make any difference to JCL. "Moving out to SLF4J" has never been even raised as a topic, and I think it very unlikely to happen. That's not to say that the concept of static binding isn't interesting. We're aware of it and it may well influence JCL's development. Simple static linking doesn't meet all of JCL's requirements but some kind of hybrid model may. And if it does I'm sure credit will be given to UGLI/SLF4J as the original implementation of the static linking concept. See also: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=log4j-dev&m=111672126104053&w=2 Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
